Google+ Followers

Saturday, 6 September 2008

Kasztner - Debating with Zionist Collaborator Mad Mikey Ezra

Well it was an excellent meeting held by Green Left at SOAS on the subject ‘Jewish Perspectives on anti-Zionism’. (see below) A couple of Zionists, including one ‘Mad’ Mikey Ezra [MME] and a couple of friends turned up, but although one of his friends had the courage to tackle me strangely MME, was totally silent, fiddling with his mobile (or something anyway!).

Although quite brave on the internet, MME is quite a coward at public meetings clearly being afraid to be shown up. He did the same at a Lenni Brenner meeting 18 months ago and when he tried to speak to Lenni afterwards was told to get lost because he'd badmouthed Lenni for not having gone to a university (whilst at the same time asking for help!). Elitism doesn't die it just takes on the jaded colours of 'left' Zionism. However Mikey is on the periphery of the ‘Trotskyist’ Zionist group, Alliance for Workers Liberty in Britain which probably says something about that group.

In a recent debate on Socialist Unity about the meeting, MME sought to indulge his favourite pastime - defending the record of the leader of the Zionist movement in Hungary (actually a minority of the movement!) Rudolph Kasztner, who in return for his silence over Auschwitz was allowed to organise a train of the Prominents carrying 1,684 people out of Germany to Switzerland, via Belsen-Bergen. After the war Kasztner hurried along to Nuremburg in order to testify in support of the Nazis he'd worked with. Not as an individual, but as the representative in Hungary of the Jewish Agency, the Palestine wing of the World Zionist Organisation.

I post my reply below and beneath that the original post from MME:

Reply to a Collaborator with Atzmon and defender of Kasztner

I am accused of distorting the truth, well I shall leave it to others to judge!

1. MME accuses me of 'lying' i.e. deliberately telling an untruth, because .5 million rather than .45 million Hungarian Jews died. But historians of the Holocaust cannot be exact because numbers were never recorded, either of those murdered or of those who escaped. Hilberg believes 5.1 millions died, the figure quoted as if it were sacred by the Zionists is 6 million. The truth is noone can know exactly how many died. Indeed Mikey gives a good demonstration of why this only plays into the hands of the Holocaust deniers who are quite able to notice the different totals given by different historians and then use those discrepancies to ‘prove’ how the Holocaust never happened, because they can’t even get the numbers of those murdered right. In fact it is a totally irrelevant point, what matters is that anyone died in the gas chambers or on the steppes of Russia. But if MME wants to say that the Zionists betrayed half a million rather than 450,000 I'm inclined to accept his word.

2. Yes I claimed that about 200,000 Hungarian Jews survived. Some 50,000 from the Labour Brigades and also those who fled, despite Zionist advice, over the Romanian border and about 150,000 in Budapest itself (where the Nyilas fascists killed about 50,000). Mikey being his usual dishonest self, gives us a link to to 'prove' that 255,000 survived. Well again this is, and has to be a matter of conjecture. But having gone to the link, guess what? Clearly MME can’t read or he doesn't understand the very article he refers us to or he is just lying again! Sure it mentions that 255,000 survived but the article also says that 'About 190,000 of these were residents of Hungary in its 1920 borders.' That is ten thousand less than I said survived of Hungary’s Jewish inhabitants! It would help if Mikey could read what he quotes! And the difference? Until 1944 Hungary had been a sanctuary for Jews who managed to escape from all over Europe – Austria, Bohemia and Moravia and Slovakia in particular. It is widely accepted that the pre-war Jewish population of Hungary was about 700,000 so if .5 million died then 200,000 survived.

Of course this is all irrelevant because what matters is the fact that anyone was annihilated in the gas chambers. But when your whole political project depends on exploiting the holocaust to provide you with reparations, which you then deny to the intended recipients - the Jews who survived the Holocaust - then numbers are important. See:

3. Yes the trial of Kasztner reached the Israeli Supreme Court and 2 of the 5 judges found the arguments of Kasztner's opponents quite persuasive, but the other 3 Judges found for the State. The argument of Kastner's lawyer, Attorney General Chaim Cohen was to the effect that 'if you find Kastner guilty of collaboration then you find the founders of the State likewise guilty'. In fact on one charge the Supreme Court did find the accusation of collaboration proven - Kastner had gone to the Nuremburg trial to exonerate his old friend, Waffen SS Col. Becher, which he did. In fact it later turned out that not only had he given testimony in favour of Becher, but he had also given testimony in favour of Dieter Wisliceny, the butcher of Slovakian Jewry, who was hanged in Bratislava after the war and his deputy Krumey - another SS henchmen and Waffen SS General Hans Juttner. If Mikey doesn't think this is collaboration, regardless of what the placemen of the Israeli Supreme Court say, then it just goes to show that his loyalty to the institutions of the Zionist State are higher than his alleged concerns for the victims of the Holocaust.

In fact we all, i.e. all socialists, know that courts are not neutral and in times danger to the state will act accordingly. But nonetheless the Israeli Supreme Court upheld all the findings of the Jerusalem District Court, which in turn, under Judge Benjamin Halevi, had held that all but one of the accusations of collaboration against Kastner by Malchiel Greenwald were proved. As Judge Goiten stated:'It is enough that he (Kastner's accuser - Greenwald) has managed to convince the lower court, who fulfilled the task of jury and judge alike... However the facts which were revealed substantiate the findings of the lower court and prevent us as a court of appeal from intervening. I should add also that the evidence that was brought and which is not argued against by anybody on the Kastner-Becher relations after the war and the collaboration of Kastner by rescuing Becher from the gallows do not coincide with viewing Kastner as a National Jewish Zionist personality; and coincide with the findings of the lower court - that the acts committed during the war were acts of collaboration with the Nazis.'Judge Moshe Silberg was even more forthright:'We can sum up with these 3 facts:A. That the Nazis didn't want to have a great revolt - 'Second Warsaw'.... [which Eichmann later confirmed in an interview]B. That the most efficient means to paralyse the resistance wheel or the escape of a victim is to conceal from him the plot of the coming murder....C. That he, Kastner, in order to carry out the rescue plan for the few prominents, fulfilled knowingly and without good faith the said desire of the Nazis, thus expediting the work of exterminating the masses.'

In fact Judge Goiten, although he believed and stated that Kastner was a collaborator, nonetheless voted for his acquittal on technical grounds essentially that since the Defendant, Malchiel Greenwald had not proved the truth of all his allegations, that Kastner had dressed up in SS uniform to visit Auschwitz and had financially benefited from his collaboration, it would be artificial to split up the charges of libel. This was also the opinion of Justice Olshan, President of the Court.

More importantly than Israeli judges, who have distinguished themselves by their support for the actions of the Israeli military in the occupation of the last 40 years or who endorsed the position of their fellow Judge Landau in accepting the use of ‘moderate physical’ pressure, i.e. torture by the Israeli military, who have accepted every human rights abuse against the Palestinians, systematic discrimination against Israeli Palestinians etc. was the fact that numerous witnesses who testified in the trial were themselves Hungarian holocaust survivors. They had no doubt about Kastner’s guilt. People like Levi Blum, from Kastner’s own birthplace of Cluj (Kolosvar). So when it comes to a choice between a collaborator and the Jewish survivors of the Hungarian holocaust Mikey chooses the former.

4&5. Mikey denies he is good friends with Gilad Atzmon and a minor collaborator. But he is caught on his own petard, to wit, when asked to dig up information on a fellow anti-Zionist comrade, Roland Rance, what does Mikey say to Atzmon? Piss off? Get lost? Do your own dirty work? This is what he actually wrote:

‘I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.Mikey 03.12.07 - 8:53 pm #‘Mikey, I hope you do not mind me saying that, but your contribution for the pls solidarity movement is priceless. It is crucial that we all know about the racist record of this Greenpiss, a man who was banned time after time for being a racist and an anti Semite!…However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being.’Gilad Atzmon 03.04.07 - 10:46 am #

However much Mikey wriggles he’s caught on the hook of his own words.And we learn from David Taube that ‘Last week, Mikey invited me for a drink with Gilad Atzmon. Mikey's thoughts on Gilad and his worldview follow, below….’ I’ll spare people the gory details.

6. Yehuda Bauer is not reliable on when the Auschwitz Protocols, definitively revealing the existence of Auschwitz, were handed to Kastner, representative of the Zionists and the Jewish Agency in Hungary. According to Zionist and Yad Vashem historian, Yisrael Guttman,

Kasztner was given a copy of the report on 29 April 1944… but at that time he had already made a decision, together with other Jewish leaders, choosing not to disseminate the report in order not to harm the negotiations with the Nazis.

Incidentally even Bauer, dedicated Zionist historian though he is, makes the same estimation in his ‘Jews for Sale?’ pp. 156-7. The reality is that, as even Guttman acknowledges, news of Auschwitz was suppressed in order that the Zionist and Jewish elite could escape whilst half a million were burnt and gassed. And Mikey considers this is not collaboration? Perhaps he would enlighten us as to what he does consider collaboration?

7. Rudolph Vrba, a member of the Auschwitz Underground, who together with Alfred Wetzler, was the 2nd Jewish escapee from Auschwitz, someone who received the highest medal for bravery when fighting in the Slovakian Uprising against the Nazis, is apparently ‘unreliable’ – unlike Mikey. That is why all mention of Vrba was suppressed in Israel from high school holocaust texts, why Vrba and Wetzler were referred to as the 2 Jewish Slovak escapees rather than by name, why the Hungarian translation of the Protocols was hidden away at Yad Vashem and not catalogued separately, why Vrba was deliberately not invited (along with the last surviving commander of the Warsaw Ghetto Resistance, Marek Edelman) to testify at the Eichmann trial. And why were they unreliable? Because these Jewish heroes were not Zionists, were not collaborators, unlike Kasztner and in his own, trivial and pathetic way, Mikey.

The Hungarian Zionist Rescue & Relief Committee worked hand in hand with the Nazi appointed Judenrat. To most Hungarians it would have been indistinguishable. The Judenrat helped with the round up of Jews to the concentration areas, brickyards mainly, prior to deportation. The Rescue & Relief Committee likewise worked with them, ensuring that Jews were kept ignorant of their fate, and threatening the leaderships of those communities if they didn’t accept the central control of the Judenrat. It is a technical ‘mistake’ of no consequence. Vrba’s Report is credited with the saving of 200,000 Jews. Kasztner ‘saved’ 1,684 at the expense of half a million, yet Mikey considers his collaborator hero ‘reliable’.

8. The term ‘Prominents’ to describe the passengers of the Zionist train out of Hungary is that of Kasztner himself in his Report to his employers, the Jewish Agency. Some of the Zionists, being a petit-bourgeois movement were undoubtedly cooks, bakers, butchers and candlestick makers. We are talking about the political elite of Hungarian Jewry. That didn’t debar them from leadership since the big capitalists like the Manfred Weisses negotiated their own rescue via the aforesaid Kurt Becher. http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/06/zionist-collaboration-in-hungary-mike.html

9. Mikey claims that it is a blatant lie that ‘Kasztner does not mention the Auschwitz Protocols." Yes he paraphrases from the Report, but doesn’t mention the Report itself, viz. in its references to ‘Hungarian salami’ which was or should have been in the Auschwitz Protocols but which the Slovakian Zionist leaders omitted to insert. But let us see what the acknowledged historian of the Hungarian holocaust, Randolph Braham in the Politics of Genocide has to say:‘Shortly after liberation, Kasztner brought out a detailed though self-serving report on the wartime activities of the Budapest Rescue Committee. In it, he provides both direct and indirect evidence that he and his colleagues on the Committee were fully aware of the draconic measures that had been adopted against the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. He is basically silent about their failure to inform Hungarian Jewry.’(my emphasis) p. 706.

And Braham, who is himself a critical Zionist, asks a little further on:

‘Why were the Protocols not forwarded to these leaders of the world soon after they were completed on April 26? Why were the Hungarian Jewish masses not alerted about their content? What would have been the consequence had they been alerted before the deportations?… It is safe to assume that Krasznyansky’s recollection about Kasztner’s visit to Bratislava late in April 1944 and about his receiving a copy of the original German text there is correct…. Given the evidence that at the time of the German occupation of Hungary both Kasztner and the official leaders of Hungarian Jewry were aware of the Nazis’ extermination program, how can one explain their silence?’pp. 718-9.

And this, of course, not Mikey’s pathological nitpicking, is the real question. Why were the Zionist leaders in Hungary, representatives of the Jewish Agency, silent? What did they hope to gain? The answer is all too obvious.

And let us also be clear. Whilst Kasztner was the big shot, the representative of the Jewish Agency, the Palestinian wing of the World Zionist Organisation, there were dissident Zionists, e.g. Moshe Krausz and Joel Brand, who desperately wanted to save their fellow Jews. Not because they were Zionists, if anything despite it. The reality is that Raoul Wallenberg and the other diplomats, including the Papal Nuncio, saved far more than the Zionists and they didn’t in the process help the Nazis in the destruction process.

10. Mikey tells us that ‘Whilst it is true that Kasztner gave testimonies or evidence in support of certain Nazi criminals, he also gave evidence against others.’ Well that makes it ok then!! He alleges that Kasztner made other statements leading to the conviction of other Nazi War Criminals. Not so. Mikey argues that ‘Kasztner stated in his report that Eichmann was determined that not a single Jew should survive.’ And so? Eichmann was not on trial at Nuremburg so this was a safe statement to make!! In fact it is not true because Eichmann was quite happy to help Kasztner ‘save’ a few Jews at the expense of the thousands. Kasztner was able to travel around Hungary, didn’t have to wear a yellow star and ended up sojourning in Berlin in a hotel. There is incidentally evidence that more than the 4 war criminals above, murderers of hundreds of thousands of Jews, were given supportive testimony by Kasztner e.g. Kettlitz, the purchasing agent for Becher. As Dr Robert Kempner, an American prosecutor at Nuremburg explained vs Kasztner:

‘Yes, I invited Kastner from Tel-Aviv to Nuremburg as a witness for the prosecution. Immediately after his arrival I regretted this invitation. Apart from the fact that he turned out to be a very expensive witness… a curious situation developed. We were, after all, the authorities of the prosecution. I consider it my duty to state explicitly that Kastner roamed the Nazi prison camp for Nazi Officers searching for those he could help by testimony or intervention on their behalf. In the end we were very glad when he left Nurenberg.’

11. MME infers that I distinguish between Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews who were exterminated. Nonsense of course, I merely point out that the Jews of Ukraine and Poland were in their overwhelming majority opponents of Zionism. That was certainly one reason why the Zionists leaders in the West felt little compunction in playing down, or on occasion denying that the Jews of Eastern Europe were being exterminated (see S Beit Zvi, Post Ugandan Zionist in the Crucible of the Holocaust). MME thinks there’s something wrong in saying I’d be happy if those who are responsibility for the murder organisation called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee were vaporised. Why? Their whole mission is supporting, aiding and abetting war crimes. I wouldn’t lose any sleep if the White House and its occupants were also wiped out or if the Christian Zionist movements were likewise obliterated. It has nothing to do with who is Jewish or non-Jewish. You see Mikey, I’m not a racist. It isn’t only Jewish blood that is important. There is nothing morally wrong in wiping out organisations dedicated to murder – the only objection is that there will be other cretins to take their place.

12. MME quotes Zionist propagandist S. Levenberg to the effect that "Zionists are anxious to find any place under the sun which will afford Jewish refugees the prospect of escape." Well of course they would say that! Mikey cites Ben Gurion’s public speech but such words are easy. But in his private letter, as President to the Zionist Executive, (17. 12. 38) he make his real attitude to Jewish refugees quite explicit:‘If the Jews are faced with a choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps on the one hand, and aid for the national museum on the other, the Jewish sense of pity will prevail.... We are risking Zionism's very existence if we allow the refugee problem to be separated from the Palestine problem.’ Y Elam, 'Introduction to Zionist History' Tel Aviv 1972 ppl25/6 cited in Machover/Offenburg Khamsin 6 see also 'Ot, organ of the Youth cadre of the Israeli Labour Party, no 2 Winter 1967.There are too many other quotations and incidents I could cite but the fact is that Ben Gurion, made one or 2 speeches during the war about the Holocaust and that was it. All Zionist activity had one aim – statehood. All else was secondary.

13. MME wonders whether I think that Zionists in the Holocaust ‘were against advocating resistance in the ghettos.’ and cites Mordechai Anielewicz, of Hashomer Hatzair and commander of ZOB, the Warsaw Ghetto Fighting Organisation. MME misunderstands. Zionism is a political movement which opposed fighting anti-Semitism. In Warsaw some of the worst collaborators and Gestapo agents were Zionists such as the Abraham Gancawajch, also of Hashomer Hatzair. But it isn’t a question of individuals but of politics. Many Zionists did resist, not because they were Zionists but despite that fact. But there is no recorded example, for example in Reuben Ainsztein’s ‘Jewish Resistance in Nazi Occupied Eastern Europe’ of outside help from the Zionist movement, the best organised political current in world Jewry, to the ghetto resistance. Anielewicz himself expressed his regret over the "wasted time" undergoing Zionist educational work. [Gutmann p.143] He went on to say that

"had the fate of the Jews in 1942 lain in the hands only of the political parties (Zionist - TG), the revolt would never have taken place."Y. Guttman, ‘The Jews of Warsaw - 1939-1943, Ghetto Underground Revolt’, Harvester Press, 1982 p. 441 fn. 23.

Likewise Emanuel Ringleblum, the historian of the Warsaw Ghetto, wrote of Anielewicz of Hashomer, the commander of the JFO:The Mordechai who had matured so rapidly and risen so quickly to the most responsible post as commander of the Fighters Organisation now greatly regretted that his fellows and he had wasted three war years on cultural and educational work. We had not understood that new side of Hitler that is emerging, Mordechai lamented. We should have trained the youth in the use of live and cold ammunition. We should have raised them in the spirit of revenge against the greatest enemy of the Jews, of all mankind, and of all times. [Emmanuel Ringelblum, Comrade Mordechai in Yuri Suhl (ed.), They Fought Back, p.102], cited in Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Ch. 21.]

14. Mikey complains that I spoke on a Jewish perspective on anti-Zionist on a Friday night! The tradition of Jewish socialism and Marxism was always to reject the babble and mysticism of the rabbis. However I note that the silent Mikey was not prevented from attending!

15. Mikey claims that ‘Far from the BNP being Zionist… a senior BNP spokesman said that paper was the mouthpiece of a "clique of Zionist parasites and crooks." Err yes. That’s exactly my point. The BNP manage to combine both anti-Semitism and Zionism. But come to think of it, so does Mad Mikey Ezra.

Tony Greenstein

>>It becomes tiresome correcting Greenstein’s errors that he regularly makes on numerous matters concerning Zionism and especially about the Holocaust. It is quite clear that he is trying to make a political point and by doing so has no objecting to distorting the truth in a heinous way.1. Joe90 initially claimed that 200,000 Hungarian Jews were killed in WWII. The person aptly named as "Correction" corrects this outrageous statement to a figure of 500,000. Now Greenstein lies and tells us "As a matter of fact about 450,000 Jews were exterminated in Hungary." He should have listened to "Correction" who was basically accurate. In fact, as the Holocaust Encyclopedia tells us, "Under German occupation, just over 500,000 [Hungarian Jews] died from maltreatment or were murdered." 2. Tony Greenstein claims that "about 200,000" Hungarian Jews survived the Holocaust. The actual figure was closer to 255,000. 3. Tony Greenstein claims that "there’s no doubt" that Kasztner was "a collaborator of the worst sort." This is a deliberate lie. Greenstein is well aware that the accusation that Kasztner was a collaborator reached the Supreme Court in Israel who ruled, "one cannot find moral defects in [Kastzner’s] behaviour, one cannot find any causation between it and the expediting of the deportation and the extermination and one cannot see it amounting to the degree of collaboration with the Nazis." (Ben Hecht, Perfidy Jerusalem: Milah press, 1999 p. 275)4. Tony Greenstein claims that I imitate Kasztner in my own way. This is nonsense, he has simply made it up.5. Tony Greenstein claims that I am a friend of Gilad Atzmon. This is again a pathetic lie. Far from being a friend, I have attacked and ridiculed Atzmon on numerous occasions on the internet and it is there for anyone to verify.6. Tony Greenstein claims that Kastzner was given the Auschwitz Protocols on April 29. This is not known for certain. For more information of the uncertainties surrounding this, see Yehuda Bauer, "The ‘Protocol of Auschwitz,’" Yalkut Moroshet, No. 3, Winter 2005.7. To suggest what Kastzner did with the Auschwitz Protocols, Greenstein relies upon Vrba, but Vrba was not in Hungary and as such would not have known. In any event, Vrba is notoriously unreliable. For example, even in the very short passage by Vrba that Greenstein quotes, Vrba makes a big error by suggesting that Kasztner was a member of the Hungarian Judenrat. Not only is this wrong, Greenstein knows it is wrong as he admits that Kasztner was not on the Judenrat later in his own post! One may well wonder why Greenstein relies upon the work of someone he knows to be unreliable?8. Vrba also makes the error that Greenstein repeats that the train full of Jews that Kasztner managed to save from the Nazis were all "prominent." This is nonsense, as an analysis of the passengers shows. An analysis of the occupations of passengers carried out Ann Pasternak Slater from the passenger list shows for example there to have been 40 workmen or labourers, 27 teachers, 25 tailors, 18 nurses, 12 gardeners, 3 shoe makers, 2 bakers, 2 cooks and the list goes on with 10 secretaries, 7 locksmiths, 7 mechanics, 7 hairdressers etc etc. (Ann Pasternak Slater, "Kasztner’s Ark" Areté 15 Autumn 2004, pp. 5-409. Greenstein claims that he has read kastzner’s report and goes on to say using capitals for greater emphasis: "NOT ONCE IN THE REPORT DOES HE [Kastzner] MENTION THE AUSCHWITZ PROTOCOLS." This is a blatant lie. I direct Greenstein to section II:18 of the report where Kasztner clearly states:"According to these reports, the SS was ready to repair and renovate the gas chambers and crematoria of Auschwitz… one of the guards was overheard saying, ‘Soon we’ll eat good Hungarian salami,’ referring to the provisions the Jews took with them.."10. Whilst it is true that Kasztner gave testimonies or evidence in support of certain Nazi criminals, he also gave evidence against others. Kasztner made other statements leading to the conviction of other Nazi War Criminals. For example Kasztner stated in his report that Eichmann was determined that not a single Jew should survive. For more information on these testimonies see Shoshana Barri (Ishoni), "The Question of Kasztner’s Testimonies on behalf of Nazi War Criminals," The Journal of Israeli History, Vol 18, nos. 2 and 3 1997 pp. 139-165.11. Greenstein makes the following disgusting statement: "Hitler wiped out the reserves of anti-Zionist Jewry in Poland and the Ukraine." What Greenstein does not mention is that Hitler also wiped out Zionist Jews in Poland and Ukraine. It was not as if they got to the gates of Auschwitz and the Nazis said All Zionists to the left for safety and all anti-Zionists to the right for gas chambers. Maybe Greenstein simply does not care that Hitler killed Zionist Jews, after all Greenstein has admitted elsewhere he would not lose any sleep if thousands of Jews who work for AIPAC were vaporised.12. Greenstein says that it is "well documented" that "Zionists were more concerned about statehood than saving the remnant." The official view of the Zionist Jewish Agency in so far as Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany was defined the following month, in the January 19, 1939 edition of London’s Zionist Review, "Zionists are anxious to find any place under the sun which will afford Jewish refugees the prospect of escape." (Quoted by S. Levenberg, Guardian "Letters," January 29, 1987) To complete refute Greenstein’s argument, This is what Ben-Gurion stated very clearly in September 1943:"We must do whatever is humanly possible, whatever a human being of flesh and blood is capable of doing, in order to render material assistance to those on the forefront of rescue, in order to save those who can still be saved, to delay the disaster to the extent that it can be delayed. We must do it now, to the best of our will and ability." ( quoted by Tuvia Frieling, "Ben-Gurion and the Holocaust of European Jewry 1939-1945: A Stereotype Reexamined," Yad Vashem Studies XVIII 1987 pp. 199-232)13. I have no idea if Greenstein thinks that I, or the Zionists in the Holocaust were against advocating resistance in the ghettos. Unlike Greenstein, I remember the activities of Mordecai Anielewicz, an activist within the Zionist youth movement, Hashomer Hatzair and other Zionist youth including those active within the socialist Zionist Dror and religious Zionist Akiva youth movements who were part of the ZOB (Jewish Fighting Organisation) in the Warsaw Ghetto. Given Greenstein has admitted elsewhere that he used to be a member of Bnei Akiva he should know this.14. The use of the David Irving and Nick Griffin analogy was to show that that they do not represent mainstream British Jews. In a similar way Greenstein does not represent mainstream Jewish views. The views he holds would be agreed with by a tiny tiny minority of Jews in the country. The talk at SOAS is billed as, "Anti-Zionism. A Jewish Perspective." Not a single spokesperson from mainstream Jewish body is billed. I am in favour of freedom of speech and I am not against Greenstein exercising his right to it. The title of the talk is misleading. Tony Greenstein is a self declared Marxist and I am sure readers of this blog do not need me to remind them that Marx viewed religion to be an opiate of the masses. Marxists reject religion. The title of the speech might be better as "Anti-Zionism: An anti-Zionist perspective." I can make a further observation and that is that this speech by Greenstein is being held on a Friday night and as such, no religious Jew would be able to attend. Does it show even the slightest sensitivity the concerns of the Jewish community in Britain when a talk is held offering a Jewish perspective on a Friday night by someone who has rejected the religion he claims to speaking from the perspective of! It is a farrago of nonsense.Finally, on this point, given Greenstein makes so many errors about Zionism and Jewish history as can be seen in this response to his nonsense, if anyone takes him seriously and considers him some form of authority, they are seriously deluded.15. Far from the BNP being Zionist as Greenstein alleges, as the Jewish Chronicle reported a few months ago, a senior BNP spokesman said that paper was the mouthpiece of a "clique of Zionist parasites and crooks." In fact, the view of the organised Jewish community was elaborated by Mark Gardner of the Community Security Trust in a letter to the Guardian on April 14, 2008 where he said that the message from the Jewish community was "whoever you vote for, use your vote to stop the BNP."Comment by Mikey — 1 September, 2008 @ 1:49 pmhttp://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2767

I have said it before and I’ll say it again. Every time that Tony Greenstein decides to write something about Zionism or the Holocaust, he makes a mess of things. He really should not bother.

1. Greenstein shows that he does not know that the borders of Hungary changed as a result of the Treaty signed at Trianon Palace in Versailles in 1920. Otherwise he would not make his preposterous claim about the reasons for the differing population of Jews at the time. [1]

2. Greenstein states: “the pre-war Jewish population of Hungary was about 700,000.” Had he actually bothered to check, he would know that the last census in Hungary prior to the Holocaust showed 725,005 Jews. He would also be aware that a further 100,000 claimed to be Christian but were treated as Jews under the anti-Semitic laws passed after 1938. [2]

3. Greenstein links to an article that shows that Holocaust survivors have been slow to receive restitution funds. If he had read the article he would realise that the survivors are being championed by Members of the Israeli Knesset. [3]

4. Greenstein claims that Kasztner testified “in favour of Dieter Wisliceny.” This is a nonsense. Kasztner testified against Wisliceny in September 1945 and in July 1947 Kastzner appealed for Wisliceny to be transferred from Slovak to American custody for interrogation about Eichmann’s whereabouts. Greenstein also says that Kasztner testified in favour of Krumey. Had Greenstein bothered to read Kastzner’s 1946 report, he would know that Kastzner explained Krumey’s role in the destruction of Hungarian Jewry extensively. In December 1944 Kastzner could have stayed in Switzerland, but instead he risked his own life to travel back to the Reich. There were approximately 15,000 Jews in Vienna who had been sent from Hungary and Krumey was in charge of them. In the final months of the war Krumey did kill them but, according to Kastzner, acted “in a comparatively humane way” towards them. There is no question that Krumey was a war criminal but the 15,000 Hungarian Jews in the Strasshof labour camp were no doubt relieved not to be murdered. Juttner had intervened with Hitler to stop the death march. Kastzner’s testimony for Becher is well known. It is discussed in detail by Shoshana Barri. [4]

5. Greenstein states that in the Supreme Court verdict of the Kasztner trial. “2 of the 5 judges found the arguments of Kasztner’s opponents quite persuasive, but the other 3 Judges found for the State.” In fact, 4 out of the 5 judges voted to overturn the charge that Kastzner was a collaborator. I have told him this numerous times. Greenstein knows his information is incorrect from his own sources. Greenstein has mentioned Orr’s essay which states quite clearly that 4 of the 5 judges found that the charge of collaboration libellous. [5]

6. Greenstein suggests that I am a friend of Atzmon. Greenstein is well aware that I have attacked and ridiculed Atzmon and his Marxist supporters in the SWP. I attack all those I view as rabid anti-Zionists: Atzmon, Greenstein his fellow fanatics such as Rance. In my article on Harry’s Place, I attack and ridicule Atzmon, Greenstein and Rance. [6]

7. Greenstein, who has no academic position and has never published a scholarly article, has the chutzpah to attack Yehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and one of the world’s greatest living Holocaust historians. [7] Greenstein shows no evidence that he has read Professor Bauer’s essay in Yalkut Moroshet. I suggest he does so before commenting further.

8. Greenstein lies outright about pages 156-7 of Bauer’s book Jews for Sale? Bauer does not state there that Kastzner received the Auschwitz Protocols on April 29. All he says was that “according to one version” Kasztner received the document “in late April.” Moreover Bauer does not imply that the Auschwitz Protocols were not distributed. In fact Bauer states very clearly on those pages that six copies of the document were prepared and distributed to people including Horthy’s daughter-in-law, a Cardinal and two Bishops. Moreover, Bauer states explicitly on page 157: “They certainly did not keep the information to themselves.” [8] Greenstein can’t help telling lies - even when he knows that will be caught by anyone checking his source!

9. Greenstein complains that Vrba and Wetzler “were referred to as the 2 Jewish Slovak escapees rather than by name” in Israeli high school text books. But he does not criticise his anti-Zionist comrade Haim Bresheeth’s book Holocaust For Beginners, which also refers to them as “two Czech Jews.” [9]

10. The Hungarian Zionist Relief and Rescue Committee (Vaada) was very different from the Judenrat. The Vaada was created by Jews to rescue Jews. The Judenrat was created by Nazis to control Jews. The Vaada was Zionist. The Judenrat was run by anti-Zionists. Greenstein has no basis for saying that the Vaada threatened the leadership of Jewish communities. He simply made it up. [10]

11. Greenstein suggests that those on the train were “the political elite of Hungarian Jewry.” How then does Greenstein account for passengers such as Ladislaus Lob and his father who were neither wealthy, prominent nor Zionist? Greenstein refers to the train as a “Zionist train” but the passengers included non-Zionists and virulent anti-Zionists such as the Satmar rabbi, Joel Teitelbaum. [11]

12. Greenstein should learn not to use out-of-date editions of books. Had Greenstein used the latest and full edition of Randolph Braham’s Politics of Genocide rather than an out of date version he would know that Braham specifically states that Kasztner mentions the Protocols of Auschwitz in his report. [12]

13. Greenstein refers to Joel Brand and Moshe Krausz as “dissident Zionists.” He argues that they “desperately wanted to save their fellow Jews. Not because they were Zionists, if anything despite it.” Greenstein wants to separate their behaviour from Kasztner’s behaviour which he believes to be Zionist behaviour. But it is ludicrous. Brand was Kastzner’s partner on the Zionist Vaada. In fact, the blood for goods negotiations with the Nazis started as a result of a meeting between Eichmann and Brand. The discussions with Kasztner came later. [13]

Far from being a “dissident” Zionist, Krausz joined the Zionist Federation in Hungary in 1929; he became Secretary-General of the Palestine Office of the Jewish Agency in Budapest in 1932, ran it from 1937-1944 and was a delegate to the 22nd Zionist Congress in Switzerland in 1946, moved to Israel in 1948 and lived there until his death. [14]

14. I stated that “Kasztner made … statements leading to the conviction of other Nazi War Criminals.” Greenstein responds: “Not so.” Well it is very much so. Kasztner’s affidavit accused Veesenmayer of giving an ultimatum to the Hungarian government “demanding the deportation of the Budapest Jews.” Kasztner also accused Eichmann’s boss Kaltenbrunner of commissioning “the plan of the gas chambers.” [15] As a result, Veesenmayer received a 20-year prison sentence and Kaltenbrunner was executed.

15. Greenstein doesn’t understand what is wrong with the murder of thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish supporters of AIPAC. Greenstein says he would not care if they were “vaporised” and if the whole of the White House and its occupants were “wiped out” and thousands of pro-Israel Christians were “obliterated.” The logic of Greenstein’s position is genocide.

16. Greenstein shows his dishonesty in the use of ellipses in his quotation from Ben-Gurion. Greenstein quotes as follows:“If the Jews are faced with a choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps on the one hand, and aid for the national museum on the other, the Jewish sense of pity will prevail…. We are risking Zionism’s very existence if we allow the refugee problem to be separated from the Palestine problem.”The full quotation is as follows:

“if the Jews are faced with a choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps on the one hand and aid for the national museum in Palestine on the other, the Jewish sense of pity will prevail and our people’s entire strength will be directed at aid for the refugees in the various countries”

“Ben Gurion is saying that if the Jews have to choose between sending aid to the doomed ‘national museum’ that the British were administering and giving assistance to Jews seeking refuge in other countries, of course Palestine would lose out.” [17]

17. Greenstein claims: “Ben Gurion, made one or 2 speeches during the war about the Holocaust and that was it. All Zionist activity had one aim – statehood. All else was secondary.” This is complete rubbish. Ben Gurion made many speeches referring to the destruction of the Jews. Shabtai Teveth’s book, Ben-Gurion and the Holocaust has numerous quotations. As Teveth points out, after reading Mein Kampf in August 1933, “the major – even the only – meaning of Zionism for Ben-Gurion became the rescue of the Jewish people.” [18]

18. Greenstein tries to defend his ridiculous claim that Zionists in the Holocaust “were against advocating resistance in the ghettos.” Even other anti-Zionists know this claim is ludicrous. For example, the Marxist anti-Zionist John Rose in his atrocious book, The Myths of Zionism states, “Zionism was perfectly capable of inspiring resistance to the Nazis.” [19]

19. Greenstein has a severe problem with logic. He states:“Mikey claims that ‘Far from the BNP being Zionist… a senior BNP spokesman said that paper was the mouthpiece of a “clique of Zionist parasites and crooks.” Err yes. That’s exactly my point. The BNP manage to combine both anti-Semitism and Zionism.”

The quotation from the BNP attacked The Jewish Chronicle as a “clique of Zionist parasites and crooks.” Greenstein infers that the BNP is Zionist. Even his anti-Zionist comrades should see that as an insult to their intelligence.

Mary McCarthy famously said that “every word Lillian Hellman writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’” I would say the same about Tony Greenstein.

There were approximately 15,000 Jews in Vienna who had been sent from Hungary and Krumey was in charge of them. In the final months of the war Krumey did NOT kill them [my emphasis] but, according to Kastzner, acted “in a comparatively humane way” towards them. There is no question that Krumey was a war criminal but the 15,000 Hungarian Jews in the Strasshof labour camp were no doubt relieved not to be murdered.

paragraph 16 should say:

even Jim Allen’s play Perdition did NOT twist that particular quotation [unlike Tony Greenstein!]

There isn't a great deal of point in replying to this garbage, so I won't waste a lot of time.

i. The BNP are anti-Semitic. According to the Board of Deputies of British Jews spokesperson, they also have the most pro-Zionist website of anyone.

ii. I'm well aware that Hungary suffered a massive loss of territory under the Treaty of Trianon. That was, again, the point I was making silly boy. I also note that the late Zionist historian, Lucy Dawidowicz, gives some figures about those murdered in Hungary. According to her 450,000 died, 200,00 survived. I seem to recall these were the figures I gave!! But of course Mikey knows different. The question of Christian Jews is a different question, but in general they were not deported (most lived in Budapest anyway).

iii. It is irrelevant whether Mikey has written articles criticising Atzmon. The fact is that he has show himself willing to work with him when it comes to attacking anti-Zionist Jews. He conveniently omits to explain the quotations I have cited!

iv. Perhaps where Mikey shows that he is not only incapable of telling the truth, but he deliberately distorts it as well. His habit of accusing others of lying would appear to be a reflection of his own methodology.

Mikey states that 'Greenstein claims that Kasztner testified “in favour of Dieter Wisliceny.” This is a nonsense. Kasztner testified against Wisliceny in September 1945 and in July 1947 Kastzner appealed for Wisliceny to be transferred from Slovak to American custody for interrogation about Eichmann’s whereabouts.'

The article by Shoshana Barri that he quotes has a somewhat different take on this, to wit:

'In all, then, there was a total of 7 interventions by Kastner on behalf of Nazi war criminals. Three testimonies were on behalf of Becher, two were on behalf of Krumey, one was on behalf of Juttner and tehre was an appeal that had the potential to deliver Wisliceny from the threat of executionin Slovakia.... Kastner's testimonies were foreful enough to aid the Nazi war criminals.'

So here we have a David Irving distortion of historical sources. Far from wanting Wisliceny transferred in order to aid the hunt against Eichmann, the intention was obviously clear - to try and save his neck as Barri, writing in that well-known anti-Zionist magazine The Journal of Israeli History, makes clear.

The idea incidentally that anything Kastner said had any influence on the conviction and execution of Kaltenbrunner is a figment of Mikey's imagination. Kastner was a minor fish in this whole episode. His only influence was in helping to exonerate, because having a representative of the Jewish Agency in your favour was clearly going to be advantageous.

It is no surprise that Mikey is such a fan of Kastner.

As to the other points such as the position of the judges of the Israeli Supreme Court in the K appeal, I suggest Mikey try rereading what I wrote. It is often a good idea, if you can stop spluttering long enough, because then he will see that I make it clear that Judge Goiten spoke one way and voted another.

It's not much wonder that Mikey attends anti-Zionist meetings but never has the courage to make an intervention!

A poster by the name of "Correction" responded to this latest contribution by Tony Greenstein on Socialist Unity - I copy it below:

Tony Greenstein writes:

“So here we have a truly David Irving style distortion of historical sources. Far from wanting Wisliceny transferred in order to aid the hunt against Eichmann, the intention was obviously clear - to try and save his neck as Barri, writing in that well-known anti-Zionist magazine The Journal of Israeli History, makes clear.”

Shoshana Barri wrote:

It is the author’s view that Kastner’s appeal… was but a continuation of the Jewish Agency’s attempts to locate Eichmann. Kastner, after all, presents reasons similar to theirs in his memorandum: “It should be noted that Wisliceny is the only available member of Eichmann’s staff who can give a complete and thorough picture of the extermination program and the people involved in the execution of this program. He will probably be hanged by the Slovakian officials where he is interned unless he is extradited and we would thereby lose all the proof he may be expected to give.”

1. I would like to thank the poster by the name of “Correction” above, who has clearly bothered to check the source. I would advise anyone to check Greenstein’s sources as he regularly distorts them. Adding to the point by Correction, we can see that Greenstein does not know the difference between a testimony and an appeal. Even in the quote that Greenstein uses from Shoshana Barri, she does not say that Kasztner testified for Wisliceny.

2. Greenstein states: “The BNP are anti-Semitic. According to the Board of Deputies of British Jews spokesperson, they also have the most pro-Zionist website of anyone. (10.4.08 - The Guardian). Is Mikey suggesting that this isn’t the case?”

This matter has come up in a previous debate with Greenstein that occurred on the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty website and reproduced on the following link:http://www.paulbogdanor.com/greenstein-awlscreenshot.html

At one stage it can be seen that Greenstein went to the trouble of linking to the BNP web site to try and prove his point. Paul Bogdanor, went to the trouble of reading that web page and he noted that on that very page, the BNP were :

“- raving about the neocon plot to ‘make the world safe for the Zionist state of Israel’- attacking ‘the power of the Zionist lobby in American politics’- denouncing the ‘overseas agitprop department of Israel’s ruling Likud party’- vilifying their ‘Christian-Zionist and plutocrat allies.’”

For completeness, the BNP web page that Greenstein linked to in his posting of 10 June, 2008 at 03:09 was the followinghttp://www.bnp.org.uk/2007/11/by-their-fruits-or-lack-of-them-shall-you-know-them/

3. Greenstein writes: “Lucy Dawidowicz, gives some figures about those murdered in Hungary. According to her 450,000 died, 200,00 [sic] survived.” What Dawidowicz actually stated was “Over 450,000 Jews, 70 percent of the Jews of Greater Hungary, were deported [to Auschwitz], were murdered or died under German occupation (The War Against the Jews 1933-45, (Bantam, 1986,) pp382-3). Her pre-war figure of 650,000 Jews excludes “some 100,000 Christians, who were regarded as ‘racial’ Jews and subject to anti-Jewish laws.” (p381) The destruction of these Jewish converts is not counted in her 450,000 German occupation death toll. And as Randolph Braham notes:

“Hungary instituted a series of increasingly severe anti-Jewish measures that not only curtailed the basic civil and socioeconomic rights of the Jews but also claimed approximately 64,000 Jewish lives by early 1944.”

i.e. These 64,000 Jewish lives were taken before the German occupation.(Randolph L. Braham, “Assault on Historical Memory: Hungarian Nationalists and the Holocaust” available on line at http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/DownloadTrackPreview/ushmm.org.1434846455.01447111387.1446957713.pdf )

Mad Mikey can adopt whatever pseudonyms he wants. And no doubt his use of the name 'Correction' owes something to his disturbed childhood. However my reply, which I've posted to SU is thus:

'1. Mikey can witter on all he likes, the reason Kastner tried to have Wisliceny moved to US jurisdiction was to save his neck, not to locate Eichmann. After all if it was locating Nazi war criminals then Israel could have prosecuted the saviour of Mussolini, Otto Skorzeny. In any case there is no dispute that this would have been the effect, if Kastner’s efforts had been successful. The speculation as to motive is just that, speculation. But Mikey has already defended Kastner’s testimony on behalf of all 4 Nazi war criminals so the real reason for Mikey’s defence of Kastner is not hard to guage.

2. It was Barri who described Kastner’s testimony as being ‘on behalf of’ Nazi war criminals, not me. Barri of course is entitled to his opinion, that the purpose was to locate Eichmann, but that is merely speculative. What is clear is that had it succeeded then Wisliceny would have escaped with his life and given Kastner’s record of collaboration, including his silence over Auschwitz (other than to the select 1,684 on the train) it is clear what his motive was. Barri incidentally quotes the effective prosecutor of Kastner, Shmuel Tamir, later a Justice Minister in Israel who in his attempt to have a retrial argued that the purpose of Kastner, to obtain a lighter sentence, was but further evidence of the fact that Kastner collaborated. There is another reason that has been given by Shraga Elam for the behaviour of the Jewish Agency in this regard (& it is clear that the JA knew of and approved of Kastner’s testimony - Elam believes that Kastner was merely their pawn) and that was money.

3. I note that Mikey has not given any explanation of his e-mail conversation with Atzmon, which he doesn’t and can’t dispute. Merely referencing to an article he wrote in which, for the sake of form, he criticises the man is irrelevant. The fact is that for Zionists it is anti-Zionists not anti-Semites who are the main enemy hence Mikey’s offer to ‘research’ his and Atzmon’s opponents.

4. The only distortion in the historical record is by those who seek to exonerate the representative of the Jewish Agency in Hungary, who is acknowledged by all as having obtained the rescue of the Prominents (his description!) by keeping silent over the fact of Auschwitz’s existence. What makes this worse was this was the fag end of Nazi rule, which enabled Wallenburg, Lutz, the Red Cross and the Vatican representative, to shelter and save thousands of Jews in Budapest and elsewhere (as Eugene Levai details in his Black Book on Hungarian Jewry). Mikey and his anti-communist friend Bogdanor are in the business of trying to rehabilitate someone who was effectively a war criminal.

5. I took the Dawidowicz figures from Appendix 2 in her book, to demonstrate that the original figures I gave are as accurate as any can be. The Jews who died before 1944 were primarily murdered on account of the deportation of Jews into the hands of the Nazis under Prime Minister Bardossi. There was no extermination as such of Jews under the anti-semitic Hungarian regimes and these Jews were not in any case Christian Jews. This is just a deliberate attempt to conflate different categories.

I’m not sure where the 64,000 Jews massacred prior to the Nazi occupation comes from, as the main atrocity was the deportation of ‘alien’ Jews into the hands of the Nazis at Kaments-Podelsk when according to the Nazi SS leader Jecklyn some 23,000 died and Dawidowicz cites a figure of 17,000 and about 3,000 died in the Ujvidek massacres. However even assuming that this figure is true, what is not true is that Dawidowicz’s figures for 450,000 Jews murdered excludes Christian or racial Jews.

I suggest Mikey and his alter-ego Correction, read pp.456/7 of Dawidowicz’s War Against the Jews.‘Over 450,000 Jews, 70% of the Jews of Greater Hungary [i.e. not Trianon Hungary] were deported, were murdered or died under German occupation. Within the boundaries of lesser (pre-1938) Hungary about half the Jews were annihilated. Some 144,000 survived in Budapest, INCLUDING 50,000 ‘racial’ Jews, and about 50,000 to 60,000 survived in the provinces.’ (my emphasis)

So when Mikey writes that ‘Her pre-war figure of 650,000 Jews excludes “some 100,000 Christians, who were regarded as ‘racial’ Jews and subject to anti-Jewish laws.” (p381) he is, in his own words, lying.

Whether or not Dawidowicz is correct is another matter. It is arguable that he overestimates those who survived in the provinces and underestimates those who survived in Budapest but it is no excuse for Mikey doing a David Irving again.

It’s no surprise that when push comes to shove, Mikey feels unable to contradict or make a contribution to the debate when anti-Zionist Jews speak. For all his internet posturing, Mikey is a coward when it comes to arguing his corner face to face. Hence why he kept silent in Lenni Brenner’s and my own meeting.

It’s no wonder that The Times sent me a letter citing Mikey as saying I had traumatised him when he was younger because I put forward anti-Zionist politics. Instead of coming to terms with the fact that Zionism has never fought fascism or anti-Semitism he seeks to posture as an expert in order to try and exonerate not merely Kastner, who was merely the represntative of the Jewish Agency, but the role of the Zionist movement in ensuring that most Hungarian Jews went to their deaths ignorant of their fate. That is the crime and nothing Mikey or any other Zionist apologist says can change that fact. The Auschwitz Protocols of Rudolph Vrba were deliberately kept under wraps by kastner and that, incidentally is why Brand and Krausz were dissidents ie. they disagreed with what he was doing, so much so that Brand testified AGAINST Kastner at the famous trial in Israel. Strange behaviour if Brand was in agreement with kastner.

Likewise the mother of the Zionist parachutist, Hanna Senesh, who was captured and tortured by the Gestapo before being executed, testified as to how Kastner refused to lift a finger to help her.

Mikey’s devotion to Kastner is no surprise, because like birds of a feather, collaborators also stick together. Even when one partner is dead!

Re the BNP’s Zionism. Presumably Mikey believes his stupidity is some form of virtue. It is irrelevant what the anti-communist Bogdanor, who believes there was no difference between the Soviet and Nazi regimes. The fact is that even the Board of Deputies of British Jews concedes that the BNP is the most pro-Zionist of political parties. To wit:

‘Ruth Smeed, of the Board of Deputies, said: “The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel and at the same time demonises Islam and the Muslim world.’ ‘BNP seeks to bury antisemitism and gain Jewish votes in Islamophobic campaign.’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/10/thefarright.race

As the article is publicly available I don’t know why Mikey is even attempting to argue the toss, other than the fact that he is a dishonest prick. Yes of course the BNP is anti-Semitic, but why is that relevant? Anti-semitism and Zionism go hand in hand. Or to use one of my favourite quotes from Israeli novellist, A B Yehoshua:

‘Anti-Zionism is not the product of the non-Jews. On the contrary, the Gentiles have always encouraged Zionism, hoping that it would help to rid them of the Jews in their midst. Even today, in a perverse way, a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist.’ Jewish Chronicle 22.1.82. Even Mikey, despite his deliberate stupidity, should be able to understand that one!'

“Far from wanting Wisliceny transferred in order to aid the hunt against Eichmann, the intention was obviously clear - to try and save his neck as Barri, writing in that well-known anti-Zionist magazine The Journal of Israeli History, makes clear.”

In fact Barri wrote:

“It is the author’s view that Kastner’s appeal… was but a continuation of the Jewish Agency’s attempts to locate Eichmann.”

She quoted his memorandum:

“It should be noted that Wisliceny is the only available member of Eichmann’s staff who can give a complete and thorough picture of the extermination program and the people involved in the execution of this program. He will probably be hanged by the Slovakian officials where he is interned unless he is extradited and we would thereby lose all the proof he may be expected to give.”

Now Greenstein writes:

“the reason Kastner tried to have Wisliceny moved to US jurisdiction was to save his neck, not to locate Eichmann.”

Greenstein was caught out twisting a source to mean the opposite of what it says.

But he just carries on as if nobody noticed.

I’ve just checked another of Greenstein’s statements.

Greenstein writes:

“Brand and Krausz were dissidents i.e. they disagreed with what he was doing, so much so that Brand testified AGAINST Kastner at the famous trial in Israel. Strange behaviour if Brand was in agreement with kastner.”

Brand testified FOR Kastner at the trial.

As his memoirs put it:

“About a quarter of the Hungarian Jews survived the war - a percentage greater than that in any other country under German control. This achievement was due in no small measure to the work of the Budapest Waada. If Kastner, as the leader of the Waada after Brand’s departure, must be held responsible for all mistakes and omissions, then it is only right that he should also be credited with the success of this work. And the charge that he collaborated with the Germans solely to insure the departure of the Bergen-Belsen transport, and that by saving a few hundred he sacrificed hundreds of thousands, is a shameless calumny.”

(Desperate Mission, Criterion Books, 1958, p. 230)

Greenstein has again twisted a source who says the opposite of what he claims.

I would like to thank “Correction” for his/her posts as they are remarkably accurate and expose Tony Greenstein for the scholarly fraud that he is. “Correction” has also saved me time as I do not need to repeat the same information. Points for which Greenstein clearly has no answer for.

To cover some of the points “Correction” does not cover:

1. Despite having a copy of Shoshana Barri’s article (Shoshana is female name not a male one and Greenstein should know that) he repeats the lie that Kasztner testified for Wisliceny. He did not - he put in an appeal to have him transferred to American custody.

2. Greenstein refers to Kasztner as a representative of the Jewish Agency. He was not and nor was his committee. In fact the person who was a representative of the Jewish Agency in Hungary was Moshe Krausz as I mentioned in an earlier post to this thread. This, of course, is the same Moshe Krausz who Greenstein incorrectly argued was a “dissident” Zionist. When Kasztner went to Nuremberg and testified on behalf of Becher, he did sign in the name of the Jewish Agency but at the Gruenwald Court case, witness Eliahu Dobkin from the Jewish Agency was called who denied that Kasztner had the authority to sign in the name of that institution. [Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust (Owl Books, 1991)P.270]

3. Greenstein argues that Kastzner was “effectively a war criminal.” Well that is Greenstein’s opinion. Professor Yehuda Bauer, who has published widely on the matter argues differently. He concludes that in his opinion Kasztner is “a real-life hero.” [in David Cesarani ed. Genocide and Rescue: The Holocaust in Hungary 1944(Berg, 1997) p. 206] This view is shared by others as well. For example Anna Porter in her biography of Kastzner published last year by Douglas & McIntyre - the book is entitled: Kasztner’s Train: The True Story of Rezso Kasztner, Unknown Hero of the Holocaust.

4. Greenstein states, “I’m not sure where the 64,000 Jews massacred prior to the Nazi occupation comes from.” This shows Greenstein’s ability to look up anything. I provided a reference. It was an article by Randolph Braham, the widely recognised leading scholar of the Holocaust in Hungary. It was not difficult for him to access as I provided a link where it can be located on line. Had he bothered to read it, he could have seen in note 4 on page 65 the following:

“Approximately 40,000 to 45,000 of these were labor servicemen; 17,000 to 18,000 so called “alien” Jews who were deported in the summer of 1941 and murdered near Kamenets-Podolsk; and the remainder victims of the massacres in and around Újvidék early in 1942.”

5. Greenstein accuses me of being a coward, but I have, on more than one occasion, previously challenged Greenstein to a debate on Kasztner and the Holocaust in Hungary. Greenstein has refused. By and large, across these informal debates in the comments boxes of blogs, Greenstein walks away as he did in the first debate on Harry’s place:http://www.hurryupharry.org/2007/01/24/tony-greenstein-more-errors-than-paragraphs/or as he did on a more recent debate on the Alliance from Workers’ Liberty web site (reproduced at http://www.paulbogdanor.com/greenstein-awlscreenshot.html)Up and until now I have copied my contributions from this thread to Greenstein’s own blog entry on this discussion:http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/09/kasztner-debating-with-zionist.htmlBut it seems Greenstein has thrown his toys out of the pram one more time as in a more recent blog entry he now claims he will not accept any more of my contributions. http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2008/09/moderation-apologies.html I will actually try and copy this to his blog, and readers will be able to see if he prefers censor to debate.

6. Greenstein discusses traumatising people. Well, according to Nigel Savage, in a letter to F. Howard who was then an Executive Member of the National Union of Students, Tony Greenstein, “led the intimidation of a Brighton Polytechnic student, Brian Conn, who left his Jewish Society stall at Freshers Fair, in tears and thoroughly afraid.” http://www.paulbogdanor.com/greenstein.pdf

7. Greenstein repeats the lie that “Zionism has never fought fascism or anti-Semitism.” This is despite the fact that as I earlier pointed out even other anti-Zionists such as John Rose disagree with him and provide examples of reliable books that show it was the case. Greenstein also knows that he has told a lie in this statement as in the same post, Greenstein mentions Hannah Senesh. This very same Hannah Senesh was a Zionist who had emigrated from Hungary to Palestine and along with numerous other Zionists parachuted themselves into Europe in order to operate behind Nazi lines. Whilst the book is not completely reliable - a most interesting account of their ventures can be read in the following book: Yoel Palgi, Into the Inferno: The Memoir of a Jewish Paratrooper Behind Enemy Lines (Rutgers University Press, 2003) As Palgi was a mission companion of Sensesh, this book is particularly interesting.

8. It is true that Kasztner did not do anything for Hannah Senesh. According to her mother, she attempted to see Kastzner and was turned away with a number of different excuses about Kastzner being busy or not there. Kasztner claimed that he was not aware that Hannah’s mother had tried to see him. (Judith Tymor Baumer, “‘Parachuting to Their People’ - the Operation of the Parachutist-Emissaries During World War II in Historical Perspective,” Yad Vashem Studies Vol. XXV 1996 p. 152)

9. The poster by the name of “Correction” has already shown that far from testifying against Kasztner, he testified for him. It can be noted that many Israelis know the most about the Kasztner trial from Motti Lerner’s 1994 television drama, Mishpat Kastner. This was a three part mini-series and about the court case. There was a sub plot in this television drama and that was the strange relationship between the Kasztner’s and the Brand’s. Rudolf Kasztner was having an affair with Joel Brand’s wife Hansi and it seemed that both Kastzner’s wife and Joel Brand knew about it. Even despite this, Brand still was in favour of testifying for Kasztner. (I accept that this is a television drama and not necessarily reliable - Brand’s book, Desperate Mission is obviously much more reliable - but the point I wish to make is that Motti Lerner’s drama was broadcast on a major Israeli channel on prime time. If it had been wrong on the point about Brand and Kasztner there would have been uproar in Israel on the matter and there was not.)

10. It is tiresome that Greenstein keeps referring to the BNP as Zionist when they quite clearly are not. I draw Greenstein to the attention of a letter published a few days later (April 14, 2008) in the Guardian by Mark Gardner, spokesperson for the Community Security Trust, the Jewish communal body that is recognised as actually responsible for monitoring antisemitism. The letter showed very clearly that the view from the mainstream Jewish organisations was “whoever you vote for, use your vote bto stop the BNP.” The headline above the letter was “Don’t be fooled by the BNP claims.” It seems that Greenstein has been fooled.

11. Greenstein takes a quote from one Israeli that he has located that says that a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist. This is plainly wrong. The Nazis for example were virulently anti-Semitic and also anti-Zionist. I suggest Greenstein reads Francis R. Nicosia’s new book published this year by Cambridge University Press Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany. This should set him right on the point.

Finally, joe90 makes a useless contribution adding nothing but insults to the debate. Greenstein may distort the information he has read but at least he has read something on the matter. joe90 has clearly not even read anything reliable on the subject and it shows.

1. We can get the measure of Joel Brand's testimony, he was called by Shmuel Tamir for the Defence i.e. Malchiel Greenwald by his testimony:'“Rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse, I have cursed Jewry’s official leaders ever since. All these things shall haunt me until me dying day. It is much more than a man can bear.” [Protocol, C.C. 124/53 in the D.C. Jerusalem] Perfidy p.210.

And at a Histadrut meeting in Tel Aviv after the war, he stated ‘“You were the last hope of hundreds of thousands condemned to death. You have failed them. I was those people’s emissary yet you let me sit in a Cairo prison ... You have refused to declare a general strike. If there was no other way, you should have used force.” ... (Alex Weissberg, Desperate Mission, p.210).

2. I note that Mikey has not commented on the fact that I caught him out yet again, with his statement that Lucy Dawidowicz's estimate of the numbers of Hungarian Jews murdered INCLUDED the racial Jews, which is where this debate originally started. Mikey operates on the basis that if he doesn't comment when his mistakes/lies are refuted then they didn't happen. Another example of the David Irving technique.

4. Judge Halevi of the Jerusalem District Court, whose findings of fact were not interfered with by the High Court (not that it would have mattered) ruled:'It is clear that the positive recommendation by Kastner, not only in his own name but also in the name of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress was of decisive importance for Becher.' Perfidy, Ben Hecht p.ii.

5. I am baffled that Mikey continues to lie, to use his expression and deny that Kastner was head of the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee in Hungary or their representative. Barri herself, in an article which is remarkably deficient in many ways, is quite clear. Not only did Kastner testify as a JA representative but she comes to the conclusion that he did it with their knowledge and assent, which they denied via Dobkin. Is she a liar as well as Mikey?

6. Yes Dobkin did deny that Kastner testified on behalf of the Jewish Agency but as Mandy Rice-Davies put it, he would, wouldn't he? It's called plausible deniability. The fact is noone believed him, not least the Judge! Being an intelligence operative one wouldn’t expect him to say otherwise.

In fact this is what Kastner himself said (Perfidy pp. 54/5).“I went to Nuremberg from Switzerland at the beginning of 1947 at the invitation of General Taylor, chief Prosecutor for the International Court. I was the General’s advisor in matters pertaining to Jewish extermination.“I worked in Nuremberg until August, 1947. Then I returned to Switzerland in order to immigrate to Israel. I received a cable from General Taylor guaranteeing me my expenses and a fee if I would return to Nuremberg to assist him. I showed the cable to Ben-Gurion. He told me to go. After a conference with the top officials of the Political Department of the Jewish Agency, where we discussed how to exploit this trip for various political purposes, it was agreed that I join General Taylor. The Jewish Agency provided me with money for the trip.“In answer to the defendant’s accusation that I aided Becher after the war, I will state that I gave no testimony in Nuremberg in favor of Becher. I gave it neither to the International Court nor to any of its institutions or officials.“Greenwald’s statement in his pamphlet that I went to Nuremberg to save Becher is a total lie.“The German court of de-Nazification of Becher invited me to give them testimony about Becher when I was in Nuremberg. I refused. I had no desire to appear before any Germans. I’d had enough of Germans during the war.“I agreed, however, to give them a sworn affidavit, which I sent them. It is a total lie that I helped Kurt Becher escape punishment in Nuremberg. I gave no testimony or affidavit in his favor.”

Which even Mikey knows is untrue. But Kastner, Mikey's hero clearly claimed that he was a representative of the Jewish Agency! To wit:'“In my opinion, when his case is judged by Allied or German authorities, Kurt Becher deserves the fullest possible consideration. . .“I make this statement not only in my name but also in behalf of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish World Congress. Signed, Dr. Rudolf Kastner, Official Jewish Agency in Geneva. Former Chairman of Zionist Organization in Hungary, 1943–1945. Representative of Joint Distribution Committee in Budapest.” Perfidy p. 68 citing Affidavit before Mr. Benno H. Selcke, Jr., of the American Evidence Division of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg on August 4, 1947.

And Hecht continues:'Judge Halevi asks the red-faced Kastner, “Who gave you permission to offer this affidavit in the name of the Jewish Agency?”Kastner: Dobkin and Barlas gave me permission to speak in the name of the Jewish Agency. And Mr. Perlzweig, chief of the political department of the World Jewish Congress, and Mr. Riegener, European representative of the World Jewish Congress gave me permission.'

In other words the same Dobkin who denied the Jewish Agency had given the authorisation! So here’s a dilemma. Who, I wonder, does the Zionist toe-rag Mikey believe? A difficult dilemma I guess.

7. But let us divert. Another witness at the trial was Professor Aktzin, dean of the Law Faculty of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem:‘Tamir: Is it true that the Joint Distribution Committee and the Jewish Agency did suppress the news of the extermination in the United States up to and through 1944?Professor Aktzin: The Zionists, Jewish Agency and Joint Distribution Committee did refrain from publicizing in the American press the massacre of Jews. [Testimony of Professor Benjamin Aktzin, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, at C.C. 124/53 in the D.C. Jerusalem, cited in Perfidy].

8. Or let us take another little diversion, the question of why Kastner kept silent. At the trial in Jerusalem, Shmuel Tamir asked:

And you, Rudolf Kastner, head of the Hungarian Jewish Agency Rescue Committee, do not know if any of your assistants tried to warn the Jews of Hungary.Kastner: I can’t remember.(Kastner’s voice is a scream. His eyes roll and he looks like a man about to jump out of a window. Prosecutor Tell rushes in with the smelling salts.)Tell: (jumping to his feet) This is torturing a witness! This man will have to be carried out of here on a stretcher. It is pure torture.Tamir: If simple questions become torture because the witness is struggling to avoid answering them truthfully, the fault is not mine. (p.100 Perfidy)

And as for the mother of Hannah Senesh, whose testimony Mikey disregards in favour of his collaborator hero:

Tamir: Is it true that Hanna Senesh was a British officer in addition to being an emissary of the Jewish Agency?Kastner: Yes, that is true.Tamir: Is it true that British interests in Hungary were represented by the Swiss Consulate?Kastner: Yes.Tamir: Did you notify the Swiss Consulate that a British prisoner of war was being held by the Hungarians?Kastner: No.Tamir: Why didn’t you?Kastner: I think I had my reasons. (Hecht, p.113)

Kastner’s cross-examination in C.C. 124/53 in the D.C. Jerusalem.

Mikey even tries to find an excuse for Kastner’s refusal to see Hanna Senesh’s mother in Budapest, who was desperately trying to get food to her and a lawyer. A flavour of what happened was her testimony when she met him by chance in Israel:

‘Dr. Kastner answered, “Believe me, what happened pains me more than it does anyone else.”I said, “I believe it is painful to you now, Dr. Kastner, but at that time, when something could have been done, I could not find you.” He said, “No we did everything. One day I shall come to you and tell you how much we did.”I said to him, “I know it is not true. I don’t say that you could have saved my daughter Hanna, but that you didn’t try—it makes it harder for me that nothing was done.”He said, “Truly, we did everything. Believe me, we did everything and I will call on you and tell you someday.”I said to him, “I know the contrary to be true. If you wish to tell me, Dr Kastner, that the matter of my daughter Hanna was so dangerous that it was better no to touch it, I’m willing to accept that as an explanation.” Hecht p.116

9. As Hecht testifies re Moshe Kraus, the dissident Zionist in Budapest, ‘Krauss has also filed a court case against the Jewish Agency in Palestine for not paying his salary and for throwing him out of his job without even compensation.’ ‘Only one exception to the do-nothing, say-nothing policy of official Zionism - religious Zionist Moshe Kraus, who left the Jewish-Agency-Zionist Party Line and its ranks of “rescuers,” and, almost single-handed, raised a fairly laudible outcry. Heroic Moshe Kraus enlisted the support of the Swiss consul in Budapest, Charles Lutz, the Swedish Representative, Raoul Valenberg, and representatives of several South American countries. He headed up an Underground that turned the city’s basements into hideaways,…’ (Hecht, p.121)

10. Mikey refers to a letter from Nigel Savage, a right-wing Vice President Finance at Sussex University, who wrote a letter to F. Howard, an Executive Member of the National Union of Students, Tony Greenstein. This is an example of the quality of Mikey’s argument. The complaint was about the fact that I had been able to speak to a successful motion at Sussex University SU’s AGM supporting the Palestinians. Apparently Savage didn’t like the fact that Howard spoke at the same meeting as me. His allegation that I intimidated a Brighton Polytechnic student, Brian Conn, ‘who left his Jewish Society stall at Freshers Fair, in tears and thoroughly afraid.’ is another lie, unless of course listening to an argument different from one’s own opinions constitutes intimidation.

But according to Alistair Brett, solicitor for The Times, Mikey wrote that ‘I was a student myself in the period X-Y and I can assure you that when I heard Greenstein speak, I felt very intimidated - and yes I was a Jewish student. In fact my current fascination with collecting information about Tony Greenstein and trying to deconstruct all of his arguments, psychologists might put down to getting some revenge for the stress he caused me with his pamphlets and speeches as a student.”

Sad really. And lest people forget, it was Mikey’s false allegations that I had intimidated Jewish students on David Aaronovitch’s blog which led to my having to bring a successful libel action against The Times. http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1487 Or maybe Mikey has forgotten the apology that The Times made, as a result of him having lied once again.

11. Yes it must be ‘tiresome’ that I keep referring to the BNP as pro-Zionist but there it is. Even the Board of Deputies of British Jews admits that! The only article the BNP carried re the Lebanon War was in support of Israel’s genocidal bombing. But maybe Mikey can explain Ruth Smeed’s statement in The Guardian that ‘The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel and at the same time demonises Islam and the Muslim world.’ ‘BNP seeks to bury antisemitism and gain Jewish votes in Islamophobic campaign.’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/apr/10/thefarright.race

12. Mikey believes it is a ‘lie’ that Kastner testified on behalf of Wisliceny. Then presumably he is accusing Barri of lying? The very article he continues to cite states that Kastner testified ‘on behalf of’ Nazi war criminals and included in the list was Wisliceny, whose neck he was trying to save.

13. I also note that Mikey hasn’t yet explained his conversation with Atzmon, as detailed on the blog of Atzmon’s friend – Mary Rizzo. Another inconvenient little story he wishes would go away? So perhaps he would answer a direct question (just for once)? Why did Atzmon say ‘However, Good luck with Greenie and thanks for all the info you gave us about this low being.’ What was he referring to Mikey?

14. Mikey cites Randolph Braham as ‘the widely recognised leading scholar of the Holocaust in Hungary’. This is what he had to say about Kastner:

“History and historians have not been kind to the leaders of Hungarian Jewry in the Holocaust era.” [Randolph Braham, The Official Jewish Leadership of Wartime Hungary, (unpublished manuscript), p.1.] As Braham admits, many “tried to obtain special protection and favours for their families”. [Randolph Braham, The Role of the Jewish Council in Hungary: A Tentative Assessment, Yad Vashem Studies, vol.X, p.78.] cited in Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Ch. 25.Mikey denies being a coward because I refused to continue debating him on Harry’s Place. Socialist Unity is a better place, although of course Mikey is a complete reactionary. What I was referring to was his inability to challenge either Lenni Brenner or myself at public meetings. But maybe he is shy!!

15. Mike claims that I have said that I will not accept any more of his contributions upon my blog. Again, even over the simplest things Mikey either lies or can’t read (and I suspect it may be a problem of literacy as much as honesty). I have begun to moderate the blog and I made it clear why:

‘I have always opposed the idea of moderating a blog, believing that it inhibits free debate. However, as the number of deleted posts indicates, there has been a regular attempt by the anti-Semitic supporters of Gilad Atzmon and Mad Mikey Ezra to defame other anti-Zionist Jews with puerile abuse.’

I gave as an example the fact that holocaust deniers and Atzmonites, in other words friends of Mikey, have been bombarding the blog with racist and fascistic comments. So yes, I will block those who say there was no holocaust. I will also block those who make disgusting personal attacks on anti-Zionist comrades of mine like Roland Rance, as Mikey’s anti-Semitic friend Atzmon has repeatedly done. However if Mikey posts without abuse it will be carried.

I made this clear when I said: ‘However I shall not block any post simply because I disagree with it. As I explained to Ms Rizzo and her friend Richard Jones, as long as it is not personally offensive it will be posted.’ Let’s see if Mikey can do this!

16. Yes I said that Zionism has never fought anti-Semitism or fascism. It would be tedious to give examples such as the friendly relations between Mussolini and the leaders of the WZO, Sokolow and Weizmann for example. Even Hannah Senesh, whom Mikey cites, was abandoned by the representative of the Jewish Agency Kastner. I also made it clear that I differentiate between individuals, such as Mordechai Anielwicz, the leader of the Jewish Fighting Organisation (ZOB) in Warsaw and the movement. Many Zionists undoubtedly hate anti-Semitism but the movement they are a part of sees and always saw anti-Semitism as having, in Herzl’s words ‘the divine will to the good’ in it. It’s a complicated argument I know so I accept that Mikey finds it difficult to get round the difference between an individual and a movement or organisation.

But there is no doubt that the Zionists, who were busy setting up kibbutzim in Nazi-occupied Poland and Europe, did nothing to prepare for resistance and that they provided the majority of the collaborators and Judenrat (Jewish Councils). As Dawidowicz notes (War Against the Jews, p.321)‘Only the left wing parties and the socialist Zionist youth movements succeeded in transforming their pre-war apparatus into functioning underground organisations. The largest of these was the Jewish Labour Bund... the Jewish section of the Communist Party had been second in numerical strength before 1939.,. smaller and weaker than the communists were the Labour Zionists split into left and right wings.

And what does Donald Niewyk in his The Jews in Weimar Germany conclude:‘In so far as the National Socialists succeeded in persuading Germans that their future plans coincided with those of the most active and vocal Jewish group, the Zionists, their anti-Semitism must have been made to appear essentially harmless. Niewyk describes how Liberal Jews referred to the Zionists as ‘Volkisch Jews’. ‘Their exasperation was unbounded when at one Centralverein meeting, Zionist and anti-Semitic hecklers took the same ground.’ Niewyk p. 372.

17. Mikey describes A B Yehoshua as ‘one Israeli’. In fact he is one of the foremost Israeli novelists and the speech where he was reported as saying that even today, ‘in a perverse way’ a real anti-Semite must be a Zionist, was given to the Union of Jewish Students. But I accept that if it was only a question of one Zionist then it would be unfair to label the whole movement with one individual’s quirky opinion. But Yehoshua is mainstream. What did the Editor of Die Welt, Jacob Klatzkin, the Zionist weekly, write:‘Instead of establishing societies for defence against the anti-Semites who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defence against our friends who desire to defend our rights. J Klatzkin in B Matovu 'The Zionist Wish and the Nazi Deed', Issue Winter 1966-7, cited in Uri Davies, Israel: Utopia Incorporated, p.17.

Or the founder of Political Zionism – Theodore Herzl:‘the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies. We want to emigrate as respected people. Diaries pp. 83/4, Thomas Yosseloff.

I could cite a ream of quotes and still be going!!

I have incidentally read Francis Nicosia’s book and it is very good in terms of source material, but not so good in terms of analysis. It produces further evidence of the close symbiosis between the Nazi Party and Zionism. Far from the Nazi Party being anti-Zionist, ludicrous, it specifically differentiated between the ‘good’ Jews – the Zionists and the bad ones.

Again I quote the good Zionist Dawidowicz in relation to the attitude of the SS. Heydrich laid down that:‘The activity of the Zionist orientated youth organisations are not to be treated with the strictness that it is necessary to apply to the members of the so-called German Jewish organisations (assimilationists).’ (p.118, War Against the Jews).

18. But the most idiotic of Mikey’s points is where he accuses me of using ellipses in order to change the meaning of Ben Gurion’s letter to the Zionist Executive of December 1938, one month after Krystalnacht, when it was clear to all that the Jews in Germany were in dire peril. Any reasonable person can see that the ellipse doesn’t change the meaning of the quotation, if anything it reinforces it.

“if the Jews are faced with a choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps on the one hand and aid for the national museum in Palestine on the other, the Jewish sense of pity will prevail [and our people’s entire strength will be directed at aid for the refugees in the various countries].

The Jewish problem now is not what it used to be. The fate of Jews inGermany is not an end but a beginning. Other anti-Semitic states will learnfrom Hitler. Millions of Jews face annihilation, the refugee problem hasassumed world-wide proportions, and urgency. Britain is trying to separatethe issue of the refugees from that of Palestine. It is assisted by anti-ZionistJews. The dimensions of the refugee problem demand an immediate, territorial solution; if Palestine will not absorb them another territory will.Zionism is endangered. All other territorial solutions, certain to fail, willdemand enormous sums of money. If Jews will have to choose between therefugees, saving Jews from concentration camps, and assisting a nationalmuseum in Palestine, mercy will have the upper hand and the whole energyof the people will be channelled into saving Jews from various countries.Zionism will be struck off the agenda not only in world public opinion, inBritain and the United States, but elsewhere in Jewish public opinion. If weallow a separation between the refugee problem and the Palestine problem,we are risking the existence of Zionism.’”

The meaning is crystal clear. Britain, ‘assisted by anti-Zionist Jews is trying to separate off the Palestine problem from the question of rescue of Jews from the Nazis. True because Palestine was no solution. The Arabs had revolted in 1936-9 against Zionist colonisation and the British had introduced immigration quotas. What was Ben Gurion’s fear? ‘if Palestine will not absorb them another territory will. Zionism is endangered.’ Ben Gurion was not concerned about the danger of annihilation, but the fact that Zionism would be endangered by rescue. Mercy will have the upper hand, ‘the whole energy’ of people will be chanelled into saving Jews and ‘Zionism will be struck off the agenda’. His conclusion therefore was that no separation could be allowed ‘between the refugee problem and the Palestine problem.’

Does this sound like someone whose main priority was getting as many Jews out of Nazi Germany? To anyone who can read it is quite clear. He was worried by what was termed ‘refugeeism’ by other Zionists would endanger the Zionist project. And what was the answer? Whenever the question of rescue of Jews came up, the Zionists would cry ‘what about Palestine’. They did this in Britain, the USA and Australia among other countries. They did their best to ensure that the Evian Conference of 1938 was not a success and when San Domingo offered a 100,000 places they did their best to stymie it. This is the record of the organisation that Mikey and his disciplinary friend Correction defend.

As the Israeli Socialist Organization Matzpen commented on this letter:Saving Jewish lives from Hitler is considered by Ben Gurion a potentialthreat to Zionism unless the Jews thus saved are bought to Palestine. WhenZionism had to choose between the Jews and the Jewish state, itunhesitatingly preferred the latter. (Arie Bober (Ed.), The Other Israel : The Radical Case Against Zionism, Anchor Books, New York, 1972, p. 171).

Or to quote the President of the American Zionist Organisation, ‘I am happy that our movement has finally veered around to the point where we are all, or nearly all, talking about a Jewish State... But I ask, are we again, in moments of distraction going to confuse Zionism with refugeeism which is likely to defeat Zionism... Zionism is not a refugee movement. It is not a product of the second World War, nor of the first. Were there no displaced Jews in Europe... Zionism would still be an imperative necessity.’ 49th Annual Convention of Zionist Organisation of America, New York Times, 27. 10. 1946.

Despite there being many sincere Zionists who, despite their own movement, sincerely wanted to fight fascism, the Zionist movement itself had but one priority and it wasn’t rescuing Jews. The book I’ve quoted above, Ben Hecht’s Perfidy isn’t a book by an anti-Zionist. Hecht was a Revisionist Zionist, as were his friends Bergson and Merlin in the USA, but despite that they moved mountains in forcing the US Government to set up the War Refugee Board, which is credited with the saving of a few hundred thousand Jews. Till the end the Zionists opposed such an organisation.

And losing his rag, Mikey accuses Joe of making personal attacks! Talk about motes and beams.

I know this is lengthy, but as the old saying goes, by the time the truth has got its boots on a lie is 12 leagues round the world.

This comment has been moderated and libellous and historical revisionist comments deleted.

The rest of the nonsense if left untouched

Tony Greenstein

1. Perfidy

Zeev is completely correct to attack Tony Greenstein for the use of Ben Hecht’s Perfidy.This is the same Ben Hecht who in 1931 wrote the novel A Jew in Love. Within four lines of the first page of that novel he states, “The Jews now and then hatch a face which for Jewishness surpasses the caricatures of the entire anti-Semitic press. These Jew faces in which race leers and burns like some biologic disease are rather shocking to a mongrelized world.” Hecht continues on his first page “People dislike being reminded of their origins. They shudder a bit mystically at the sight of anyone who looks too much like a fish, a lizard, a chimpanzee or a Jew.” [1] Hecht continues in this vain but I think I have made my point and it is not necessary for me to quote further from that book.At the very beginning of his 1961 polemic, Perfidy, Hecht admits that he is not objective: “For though I write a history I am not a historian; that is if an historian is a man full of facts and with an objective attitude. Facts I have, but I am not objective” [2] As Zeev states, the case presented by Hecht is that of Tamir. If anyone is any doubt of this, Hecht dedicated Perfidy to Tamir.

To get an idea of how distorted Perfidy is without going into specific examples – we can see some of the major reviews of the book:

A. The most authoritative destruction was published by The American Section of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency in 1962 and reproduced as an appendix in later editions of Perfidy by Juian Messner Inc, the original publishers of the book. The review states that “The method used by Hecht would not put to shame the most notorious falsifiers of history, past or present.” Before providing examples to back up the case the, review accuses Hecht of

i. “the invention of Big Lies, of such scope and nature that they defy any brief denial”ii. “the distortion of facts, sometimes subtle, sometimes not-so-subtle”iii. “the ‘selective’ quotations – out of context – of sentences and half-sentences, giving them a meaning quite opposite to the statement as a whole”iv. “the invention of small lies, of minor importance but intended to give an impression of detailed documentation and veracity to the major lies, distortions and misquotations.” [3]

B. Chaim Lieberman, a member of the editorial staff of the Jewish Daily Forward, went so far as to write a 103 page booklet, both ridiculing Ben Hecht and commenting on the distortions of history that Hecht published in Perfidy. Lieberman states that Perfidy was “Written with spittle and venom, it is a book in which the great Jewish tragedy is turned into a cheap shocker.” Lieberman goes on to say that “Hecht really has no conception of the true significance either of Zionism of the holocaust [sic]. He is woefully unqualified, morally and spiritually, to penetrate their meaning and mystery.” [4]

C. A review of Perfidy in the New York Times said that Hecht “indulges in some crude distortions of history.” [5]

D. Lucy Dawidowicz reviewed Hecht’s polemic for Commentary: “Hecht is neither a historian nor a chronicler, he has little respect for the accuracy of a date, a name, or a quotation: it is too much to expect that he should have placed Kasztner in historical context.” Dawidowicz was scathing in her attack: “He [Hecht] has converted ideological differences into savage personal defamation, and equated Zionist mistakes and expediency with German murder.” [6]

E. In Jewish Frontier Marie Syrkin slated the “unsavory” book. She accused Hecht of “Falsification of facts,” of using material “out of context,” of “sleight-of-hand,” “omission,” “confusion,” “venom” and of “the revolting aspect” of exploiting “the martyrdom of European Jewry for his partisan ends.” [7]

F. A review in Midstream referred to Perfidy as “a fistful of pages concocted of half truths, outright falsehoods, misrepresentations, quotations out of context, surmises and innuendos, name calling, flight of fancy dressed up to sound like fact and huge glaring omissions of crucial facts and events which can be ascribed either to abysmal ignorance or to equally abysmal cynical disregard of truth.” Shlomo Katz who wrote the review said “It is an evil book in every sense of the word …. The first reaction to reading Perfidy is one of loathing. ‘Trash!’ one is inclined to exclaim and to fling Ben Hecht’s opus into the nearest garbage can.” Katz concluded “Ben Hecht’s Perfidy … is unique – when one reads it, one feels soiled.” [8]

This is the book that Tony Greenstein relies upon – One that is completely and utterly discredited.

2. Joel Brand : Rather than relying on the discredited Hecht to try and justify his erroneous claim that Brand testified against Kasztner, Greenstein could have read some of the contemporaneously written trial reports. Had he bothered to do so, he would know that Brand testified for the prosecution and against Gruenwald and not the other way round. [9] When Brand was recalled to the witness stand by Benjamin Halevi, Brand denied that he ever had any important differences with Kasztner.[10]

3. It is simply ludicrous for Greenstein to say Kasztner’s committee was a Jewish Agency committee. It was not and Zeev above is correct in his comment on the matter. I have already provided a good source – Martin Gilbert to show that Moshe Krausz’s organization was the representative body in Hungary of the Jewish Agency. For a further source, Randolph Braham also stated categorically that Moshe Krausz, as the Executive Secretary of the Palestine Office, represented the Jewish Agency in Budapest. [11] So Greenstein is completely wrong, Krausz was not a “dissident” Zionist.

Whilst it is true that Kasztner signed in the name of the Jewish Agency, as I pointed out earlier witness Eliahu Dobkin denied that Kasztner had such authorisation. We simply do not know who was telling the truth here, but Greenstein assumes it is Kasztner. It can be noted that Kasztner was prone to exaggeration as Greenstein also points out that Kasztner signed as “Former Chairman of Zionist Organization in Hungary.” This was a lie as that was not his title. Kasztner’s title was in fact executive vice president. [12] Given it is clear that kasztner lied about one part of his title, I do not see how Greenstein can be sure he was not lying about the other!

4. Libellous comments deleted

5. Libellous comments deleted

6. Contrary to the claim of Greenstein, I do not “disregard” the testimony of Katherine Senesh (Szenes). What I did say was that Mrs. Senesh claimed that she tried to see Kasztner on a number of occasions but was turned away by others who claimed Kasztner was not there or was busy etc. I commented that Kasztner “claimed that he was not aware that Hannah’s mother had tried to see him.” This does not disregard the testimony of Mrs Senesh.

7. Regarding Ruth Smeed of the Board of Deputies and her comments about the BNP, I do not know why she said what she did. If Greenstein is so interested to find out why, maybe he should email or write to her and ask for clarification.

Irrespective of why Ms. Smeed made her comments, it was clearly not in line with the policy of the Board of Deputies. Even the article that Greenstein links to where he read Ms. Smeed’s comments explains: “The Board of Deputies, the London Jewish Forum and the Community Security Trust have launched a campaign with other ethnic minority and cultural groups and the Hope Not Hate campaign to combat the BNP threat.” Moreover, as the article makes very clear, Henry Grunwald, president of the Board of Deputies said “Despite all its attempts to portray itself differently we know [the BNP] is still the same antisemitic, racist party it always was.” He added: “We, in the Jewish community, will not tolerate any form of racism or prejudice … I would be thoroughly ashamed if any member of the Jewish community voted for them.” [43]

8. Greenstein states, “Mikey believes it is a ‘lie’ that Kastner testified on behalf of Wisliceny. Then presumably he is accusing Barri of lying?” The points made by the poster by the name of “Correction” are completely correct. I am not accusing Barri of lying as Barri does not say anywhere in her article that Kasztner testified on behalf of Wisliceny. What Barri says is that Kasztner appealed on behalf of Wisliceny. Kasztner wanted him transferred to American custody. [44] An appeal is not the same as a testimony but Greenstein clearly does not understand this.

9. Greenstein has harped on this thread about Gilad Atzmon. He has suggested that I am “willing to work” with him and that he is my “friend.” Both of these comments accusations are absurd but Greenstein persists. The basis of this accusation seems to come from a thread on the comments section of PeacePalestine blog that can be seen on the following link: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/thecutter/117192641046077827/

I urge everyone to read all the comments by myself and if they wish also the relevant comments by Tony Greenstein, Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen. In my first contribution to the thread, I ridicule the debate that was occurring: “this thread is a farce. We have Tony Greenstein being accused of being a Zionist by Gilad Atzmon and Gilad Atzmon accusing Tony Greenstein of being a Zionist.” I also stated that Paul Eisen “thinks no Jews were killed at Auschwitz.” Eisen decided to enter into a debate with me but all I wanted to know was one thing that I asked him in that thread: “does Paul Eisen believe Jews were killed by gas in gas chambers at Auschwitz. A simple yes/no will do.” Despite earlier trying to evade the question, he finally gave his answer: “I am not sure but the evidence for the use of homicidal gas-chambers is not good at all. The evidence against it is much, much stronger.” I had achieved what I wanted to do: getting Paul Eisen to admit on the Internet in very clear language what his position on the Holocaust actually was.

Away from that matter with Eisen, readers of the thread can see that I had brought up many past activities of Tony Greenstein. I have interest in attacking anti-Zionists of all shades – whether they are those like Atzmon and Eisen, whether they are those like Greenstein and Rance or even like Bhukari or Delich. It just so happens that as Greenstein was a frequent poster in that thread, I decided to take my opportunity to attack him there. (If It did not do it there, I would do it elsewhere – like here for example.) I did not attack Greenstein there because I was asked to, but because I wanted to. I would also attack Roland Rance if he contributed to the comments boxes of blogs I view and can post at. Greenstein and Atzmon are enemies of each other and as I have mentioned earlier they use the worst insult they can each imagine– they accuse each other of being Zionists.

Greenstein claims that Atzmon wanted information on Roland Rance and that I replied on the thread on March 12, 2007 at 8.53pm that I said “‘I have been very busy digging up stuff on Tony Greenstein - Roland Rance will have to wait for another day.” Now, if anyone bothers to click on the link, they will see that no such contribution exists on the thread that Greenstein gave! Despite this detail, it is not the point I wish to make. The point is that I am happy to dig up information on Roland Rance irrespective of Atzmon, but I have no desire to assist Atzmon himself.

It is also true that I have met Atzmon. Over many years I have met many anti-Zionists. I have attended their meetings and heard them speak. Greenstein is aware of this as he has referred to the meeting I attended organised by Jews Against Zionism when Lenni Brenner spoke and I attended his own meeting by Green Left on anti-Zionism to which this thread relates. I have been for a drink, had dinner, visited them at their homes, had short or long conversations in person with or spent hours on the phone with a number of anti-Zionists including some of whom Greenstein would consider his own ideological comrades. I do not do this because I view them as my friends or to assist them , but for my own research into anti-Zionism. I will not mention specific names here but I have referred to in this thread to different examples of articles in various issues of RETURN magazine. If Greenstein does his own research he might find out who provided them to me at a discounted price! Whilst I do not need to mention names – I can assure him that it was one of his own anti-Zionist comrades. Does that make his anti-Zionist comrade, a Zionist collaborator in the eyes of Greenstein?

Libellous comments deleted

10. Randolph Braham on Kasztner

Greenstein uses Lenni Brenner’s discredited 1983 book, Zionism in the Age of Dictators: A Reappraisal [46] for Braham’s view as opposed to looking at the source itself. Greenstein writes the following:

“’History and historians have not been kind to the leaders of Hungarian Jewry in the Holocaust era.’ [Randolph Braham, The Official Jewish Leadership of Wartime Hungary, (unpublished manuscript), p.1.] As Braham admits, many ‘tried to obtain special protection and favours for their families’. [Randolph Braham, The Role of the Jewish Council in Hungary: A Tentative Assessment, Yad Vashem Studies, vol.X, p.78.]”

The first example is an unpublished manuscript and hence we cannot check it to see how out of context Brenner has taken that quote but knowing how Brenner distorts information . Given Brenner quoted it in his book published by 1983, Braham must have written that sentence prior to that time. The title of the first essay suggests that Braham was writing about the Jewish Council and in the second essay (which I have) Braham was certainly writing about the Jewish Council. A discussion about the role of the Jewish Council in Hungary would be a separate exercise but Greenstein has no real interest attacking that body as it was not a Zionist body. All Greenstein wants to do is attack Kasztner. Rather than quoting Braham on the Hungarian Jewish Council, if Greenstein wants Braham’s view on Kasztner he should look it up. If he did so, he would see that Braham says the following:

“An ardent Zionist by conviction, and an idealistic but opportunist politician by inclination….A man of unbounded political ambitions with some inclinations toward a bohemian lifestyle, Kasztner had a large number of faithful friends, as well as many bitter enemies who conspired against him. Dictatorial and jealous by nature (he could not gracefully acknowledge the success of others) Kasztner unwisely monopolized the negotiations with the SS. He may have been guided by an SS-imposed directive for secrecy ‘in order not to jeopardize the success of the deal,’ and therefore contacted the traditional leaders of Hungarian Jewry only when he needed their financial assistance. It is likely that, motivated by a strong subconscious drive for grandeur, he hoped to emerge as virtually the sole rescuer of close to one million Jews…. He had a sharp analytic mind but gifted as he was, he did not possess the strength of character which ultimately distinguishes the great from the average man. Nevertheless, in his dealings with the SS…he often displayed great skill and courage in championing the cause of rescue.” [47]

11. On Public Debates

Greenstein suggests that I am a coward because I did not raise any points either at the Lenni Brenner talk or at his own talk. The truth is that I did not do so, not because I am a coward and am afraid to debate Greenstein but because in the normal course at such “debates” contributors from the floor in the question time are not given an equal amount of time to the main speakers. Let us say that the meeting is 1 hour and a half – with speakers for 50 minutes, questions and points from the floor for 20 minutes and responses by the panel for 20 minutes. (I Just use these figures as an example). Given there may be a number of different contributors from the floor, any individual contributor is not given much time. Moreover, that contributor does not have the ability to come back to the speakers retorts. i.e the format is massively loaded in favour of the speaker. I am prepared to debate in a fair debate and that is why I proposed an internet debate on a forum acceptable to both of us. (Personally, I have no objection to Socialist Unity hosting it assuming we were given equal space for our points.) Greenstein turned the idea down. It is him that is chicken – not me.

12. I am pleased that Greenstein will accept my contributions to the comments boxes of his own blog. I assume this one will also be published.

13. Zionists and Fighting Nazis

Greenstein uses his post to try and imply that the Zionists never fought the Nazis or if individual Zionists did, they did not do so because they were Zionists. This is a long running theme of Greenstein’s poisonous writings and it is of course, like most of what he writes about Zionism, Zionists or the Holocaust complete hogwash.

Let us consider some facts. On July 28, 1942, the Jewish Fighting Organisation (Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa or ZOB) was founded. This was founded by three Zionist youth movements, Hashomer Hatzair, Dror and Akiva. Initially the Socialist Bund opposed creating a Jewish fighting force because it believed in an alliance between Poles of the same class rather than an alliance between Jews with different political convictions. Mordecai Anielewicz, an activist in Hashomer Hatzair, was one of the founders of the ZOB. The organisation that was set up on 24th October 1942 and was the organisation that Mordecai Anielewicz, a Zionist, was elected the Chief Commander. The ZOB contained 22 combat units, each with between twelve and twenty members. Fourteen of those units contained Zionist pioneers who were preparing for eventual emigration to Palestine. Away from the ZOB was the Jewish Military Organisation, (Zydowski Zwiazek Wojskowy or ZZW) led primarily by Revisionist Zionists and those from the Betar, the Revisionist youth movement, who had political sympathies with the Irgun. ZZW members also put up a very courageous fight against the Nazis in Warsaw. It therefore can be seen, far from Zionist organisations either not fighting, or Zionists only acting as individuals, the Zionist organisations were central in the Warsaw ghetto uprising one of the major acts of resistance during the Holocaust. [48]

The above was in Europe, we can now consider the view from the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine). Y. Tabenkin had said at a meeting of the Histradut Council in December 1942, “It is impossible to understand why these Jews…do not raise up their spades against their enemies.” It should be understand that at this time, there was a lack of information in Palestine about what exactly was occurring and the possibilities of resistance. An editorial in Davur in October 1942 headlined “The Zionist Underground” mentioned “There is also quiet bravery…the defense of honour….There is dedication to the people fighting.” [49] The uprising in the Warsaw changed much of the poor perception. In April 1943 an editorial in one paper commented on the Jewish resistance “An eternal symbol of a people which refuses to be destroyed by the Gentile – the symbol of life. The honour and the glory of this heroism, enacted on the front line of the war against Nazism, has perhaps no parallel.”[50] A further note of pride of the Warsaw ghetto uprising was expressed in Hapoel Hatzair in an article entitled “Defence Filled With Glory.” As far as the editor, who wrote the article, was concerned it proved “Jews are not always led like sheep to the slaughter.” [51]

It can therefore be seen that not only did Zionists in Nazi occupied Europe fight and try and resist the Nazis, but in Palestine the Zionists were immensely proud of the ghetto fighters.

In any event, Greenstein knew he was lying with his claim about Zionists not fighting Nazis as he himself quotes Dawidowicz as saying, “the socialist Zionist youth movements succeeded in transforming their pre-war apparatus into functioning underground organisations.”

14. Zionism and Nazism

This really is Greenstein’s favourite accusation. He tries to make out that the Nazi party was a Zionist party. Incredible as it sounds Greenstein not only says it, he claims he has read Francis R. Nicosia’s recently published book, Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany (Cambridge University Press, 2008) and he claims that the evidence presented in it supports his thesis. Specifically Greenstein states

“It produces further evidence of the close symbiosis between the Nazi Party and Zionism. Far from the Nazi Party being anti-Zionist, ludicrous, it specifically differentiated between the ‘good’ Jews – the Zionists and the bad ones.”

Well let us consider some of the passages in that book:

“lest the reader imagine that the purpose of study such as this to somehow equate Zionism with National Socialism, Zionists with Nazis, or to portray their relationship as a willing and collaborative one between moral and political equals. The research, analysis and conclusions, do not in any way support such notions. The existence of certain common assumptions on the part of Zionists on the one hand, and nationalist and anti-Semitic Germans on the other, does not in any way connote moral and/or political equivalency.” (pp. 2-3)

Nicosia continues:

“The dominant Zionist approach, like that of most non-Jews at the time, shared a reliance on the idea of an ethno-nationalist state, an idea that was the societal norm in Central Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Their embrace of that norm does not make the Zionists the moral equivalent of the Nazis. Nor does the willingness of the Zionist or any other Jewish organisation in the Third Reich to cooperate with the state make them willing collaborators in the Nazi destruction of Jewish life in Germany; to suppose that any Jewish organisation in Hitler’s Germany prior to the ‘final solution’ had the option of refusing to work on some level with the state is fantasy.” (p. 3)

Nicosia specifically states that it is a-historical and simplistic to “dismiss Zionism as yet another of racism, the substance of which has not been very different from German National Socialism.” (P. 8)

“Most anti-Semites could never embrace Zionism and its institutions as partners in a common quest because Zionists were, after all, still part of what they believed to be a monolithic world Jewry.” (P. 9)

“For most anti-Semites in Germany, therefore, including the Nazis prior to 1941, their willingness to use Zionism and the Zionist movement was never based on an acceptance of the Zionist view itself.” (p. 10)

“the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the Zionist movement in general recognized the critical link between its own survival and the survival and well-being of all Jews in the Diaspora. Even on a practical level, the Zionist view was that if the Nazis succeeded in murdering the great majority of Jews in Europe, a Jewish majority and state in Palestine might never be achieved.” (pp.8-9n15)

I trust I have made my point. I do not believe it is necessary for me to go further, but I cannot fail but to add one final quote from that book: “Of Course, the Nazis opposed a Jewish state, in any form, in any part of Palestine or anywhere else in the world.” (P. 197)

In all likelihood, despite his claim, Greenstein has not read Nicosia’s latest book, but if he had, it is simply another example of one Greenstein’s lies, in this instance, about its contents.

Despite the fact that Greenstein contends that the Nazis thought the Zionists were “good” Jews, here is what Hitler thought about Zionists: “For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.” [52]

Adolf Hitler delivered his first major speech on the Jewish question on August 1920, stating: “the whole notion of the Zionist state and its establishment is nothing more than a comedy.” The following year Alfred Rosenberg, who influenced Hitler, published an essay with the title “Zionism Hostile to the State” which called Zionism “the powerless effort of an incapable people to engage in productive activity… a means for ambitious speculators to establish a new area for receiving usurious interests on a global scale.” This was reissued by the main Nazi publishing house in 1938. A year after that the Nazi Propaganda Ministry distributed a book with the title Palestine: Jewish State? which exposed “the real line of Jewish politics, namely the striving for a new, perhaps decisive base for Jewish world power” in a Jewish state. They also issued a book entitled The English, Jews and Arabs in Palestine, warning that the Zionist goal in Palestine was the “establishment of a Vatican of world Jewry. A firm base is to be built, on which, in later years, Jewish world policy can rest.” During the war the Nazis published a book protesting “the exploitation of the Arabs by the Jews” and “the clear bond between the English government and the Zionists.” The Nazis were aware that Weizmann was aligning himself with the British and as such they saw an “English-Jewish alliance” against Germany. [53]

The German Foreign Minister and leading Nazi, Joachim von Ribbentrop sent a letter to the Arab leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1942 where he had said “Germany is …ready to give all her support …for the destruction of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.” [54] Far From being Zionist, the Nazis were anti-Zionist. Below is the full text of a letter sent in 1943 from Heinrich Himmler to the Grand Mufti:

“To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist Movement of Greater Germany has, since its beginning, inscribed upon its flag the fight against world Jewry. It has, therefore, followed with particular sympathy the struggle of the freedom-loving Arabians, especially in Palestine, against the Jewish interlopers. It is in the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against him that lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between National-Socialist-Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour Declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the certain final victory.”[55]

And so on and so on. As Jeffrey Herf makes perfectly clear, for the Nazis, there was a convergence between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. [56]

“I shall be more than happy to hear you play the sax! Was going to drop you a line re your spat with Shamir. He referred you to Beit Zvi’s book and argued that the Zionists couldn’t foresee the Holocaust. He is wrong on that. Both Ben Gurion and Weizmann did exactly that, with Weizmann at the 20th Zionist Congress in 1937 saying, as you may be aware, that the old and feeble will pass, ‘economic and moral dust’ if my memory serves right.

“Dare I say it, some of your remarks re the holocaust were spot on re the Zionist collaboration with the Nazis. And that is the point anti-Zionists should make rather than flirting with holocaust denial, or in Shamir’s case being a full blooded exponent.

regards

Tony Greenstein”

http://www.gilad.co.uk/html%20files/tony%27semail.htm

The actual speech by Weizmann that Greenstein was referring to in his email to Atzmon was the one Weizmann gave to the Zionist Congress in 1937. The part of the speech that Greenstein was referring to was quoted by Ben Hecht in Perfidy op. cit., pp. 19-20

“I told the British Royal Commission that the hopes of Europe’s six million Jews were centered on emigration. I was asked, ‘Can you bring the six million to Palestine?’ I replied, ‘No.’ … The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world…. Only a branch will survive.”

Both Hecht and Greenstein make the same mistake with this speech. As The American Section of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency make clear in text approved by Moshe Sharett who, during the period involved, was head of the Political Department of the Jewish Agency and subsequently Israel’s first Minister of Foreign Affairs and later Prime Minister:

“The implication is that Weizmann, foreseeing the murder of Europe’s six million Jews, decided that they were expendable. If it were not self-evident that this was not the case, it could be easily proved by a further passage in the same speech, so selectively quoted by Hecht, in which Weizmann expounds his plan of accelerating the rate of immigration to Palestine by some 150 percent, so as to make it possible for two million Jews to come to Palestine. Obviously, what Weizmann meant when he said ‘the old ones will pass,’ was that they would live out their lives in the places of their abode in Europe.”

(The American Section of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency, “Ben Hecht’s Perfidy: An Analysis of His Rewriting of History,” Op. Cit.)